152 replies to this topic

[BaronSaturday]

I find that it depends on what you play.  When I play my Tech, it's Scouts, Zerkers, and infils.  When I play me G2A it's Preds, Scouts, and Brawlers, When I play my incin, it's everything cause I'm bad at it.

[Jelooboi]

In my experience every mech has a bane, a Nemesis mech I guess. Like how the zerker is the bane of my G2 Raider because it's strengths are my weaknesses. 

The incinerator though is a goddamn ABOMINATION. The old devs were high off their ass and decided to make something that spam fires infinitely with HUGE splash damage and can also transfer heat to the opponent. Like srsly. 

With A classes it might not be too much of a problem cuz "muh air compressor" but a C class pilot like me has to stay on the ground and deal with this fuzzy bunny. Before I can finish the job I overheat. 

[StubbornPuppet]

I must be the only player who doesn't really think the Incinerator is really OP.  I find their fire easy to avoid (even in a C-Class) - just keep changing your distance from them and your height, throw in the occasional dodge... and they really can't land too many hits on you.

 

If there is anything to change about the Incin, I suppose it could do with a little less health... or maybe just decrease the rate of healing it gets from a tech.

[LaurenEmily]

I must be the only player who doesn't really think the Incinerator is really OP.  I find their fire easy to avoid (even in a C-Class) - just keep changing your distance from them and your height, throw in the occasional dodge... and they really can't land too many hits on you.

 

If there is anything to change about the Incin, I suppose it could do with a little less health... or maybe just decrease the rate of healing it gets from a tech.

I agree incin is not op in my eyes, but i can see how it might turn into that in very high tier play where everyone knows everything about their and the ooponent's mechs and abilities and the incinerator's differences become more apparent.

Only thing that seems odd to me about it is it's speed, it moves as fast as a medium mech.

[Panzermanathod]

I don't think the Incin is particularly OP either. I mean, most of the problem people have is the PPA and, despite what some people would lead you to believe, is not an easy weapon to use effectively without some practice. You could use the "shoot a few times and then SAARE" method but that has its drawbacks. And I mentioned elsewhere I've seen far more effective Scouts than Incinerators.

 

As for it's speed and HP... If either gets nerfed, I'd rather it be one or the other. If the Incinerator becomes essentially a turret with low defenses then there's no point.

[comic_sans]

I don't think the Incin is particularly OP either. I mean, most of the problem people have is the PPA and, despite what some people would lead you to believe, is not an easy weapon to use effectively without some practice. You could use the "shoot a few times and then SAARE" method but that has its drawbacks. 

 

See, once you have that practice, it is op.  An easy tip for using incin and not overheated: once it's spun up, just rapidly click both buttons a little slower than the mg can fire.  Never overheat again!  Beware of reflexively tapping when you're not spun up though, that'll get you killed when you can't get heat fast enough.

[Panzermanathod]

Maybe OP when you're close to the guy with one weapon but aside from that, no, not really much of an OP mech overall. Just weird. But that's just me.

 

And I know of the spin up trick. But that too has its cons, like making dashing more of an issue if I need to get somewhere quickly. As well as ambushes being far worse for the unprepared PPA.

 

The reason I don't find it too OP and instead find it very specialized is because, as someone who mains Incinerator, I've seen plenty of areas where the mech itself either shines or falls. It's very good at what it does but outside that, middling at best I think.

[BluetoothBoy]

Incinerator only seems OP with Tech. And here's the kicker. With a Tech healing, it is comparable to fighting two mechs! And guess what? There are two mechs! So in reality, it's not even OP, if you think about it. You just should go up against the pairing alone. Most people just conveniently forget about the Tech as a contributor to their defeat when saying the Incinerator is OP. Even if there is no assist from the little guy, I guarantee you he played a large part.

 

Also, keep in mind that any mech will seem "OP" when played by a good player. The opposite is true for low MMR players - the mechs will seem underpowered. Main point: the mechs (with a few exceptions, maybe) are very balanced and what you should be focusing on is ways to improve matchmaking (something which is unfortunately harder to do).

 

Now, in saying this, I will still acknowledge that the fact that some mechs are better than others for certain things. Usually a Pred doesn't work well in CQC dueling. Incinerator is probably not the best choice for a DM. But it is the player's job to recognize which is the right mech for the job. If they were all perfectly balanced for all scenarios, the gameplay would become stale and uninteresting after a while.

[petracles]

Sustained is great where it is. I'd say give certain burst weapons a lil' buff here and there. Small things like:

• Faster un-charged heat shots
• Faster charged EOC pucks (this just makes way too much sense IMO)
• Less spread and more damage on a charged T32-Bolt
• Faster RoF and less damage for the Reaper's Slug Rifle
• RevGL's make popcorn sounds when they explode

These are all just quick ideas, but all to the point that I believe that burst vs. sustained is sososo close to being in a perfect balance, but just that a good deal of burst primaries don't stand a chance in CQC against sustained because of small tweaks that could give them a more "fair" (ugh, sucha lame word) DPS.

[Pelanthoris]

I think this thread has so overlap with the pace thread, but anyway, I wouldn't say sustained is op in any way. To some extend I perceive it the other way around, but I'm not high tier let's leave it at that.

 

The incin is op with a tech, their two-way-support is just too good combined with quite high (and long) dps of the incin. There is also some untapped potential in the incin. Think about grenadier-incin combo. Infinite rain of hell, but you just don't see it happening. I sometimes try it but people don't get it.

 

I would like to see incin as a more support-kind of mech: draining heat from others. It's non-existent now, even if it would be possible as stated above. I would change the incin into one of these:

1. Unable to generate enough heat by itself -> need of team
2. Saare would "charge" slowly from heatgauges of itself and surrounding mechs, damage depends on level of charge. Charging should be quite slow -> incin could overheat

It would change the role of the mech totally, but what do you guys think?

[DerMax]

The Assault and the Incin are easily op atm in high-tier play.

 

I particularly hate the Assault.

Edited by DerMax, 15 April 2015 - 02:33 AM.

[KillerMariosCY]

You have to play with a variety of mechs and choose a mech according to the situation.

[cbrxx]

Funny z1alpha.  You've got almost a 3-1 k/d ratio on most your mechs and you suck? First time I ran into you in a match I thought you were hacking.  I don't make those assumptions any more as I'm finding that even though I've played tons of matches I'm still learning.  We all tend to think we're better/smarter than we are. 

 

My best mechs are about 1.3 k/d which is why I kind chuckle at all the people talking about 2k plus mmr, I just don't understand.  When I first learned of mmr I read an article that said like the top 2% were 2k mmr  and posts all over this forum talking about 2.2 to 2.4 mmr.

 

On topic.  I bought a lot of mechs with cash.  After playing them all Assault was my favorite for a while and brawler I've been enjoying almost equally as much.  Funny after trying them all I pick what's now the starting mech as fave.  But from my point of view the only op mech (from the way I see it through my monitor) is scout and I completely suck on my scout.  I guess I just don't have the reflexes.

 

I don't understand how the op thinks the sustained mechs are better.  I bought a g2 assault, arguably the most sustained mec there is and I loved it at first probably because it was easier to play but I can't stand it now.  No burst, no kill yet I did get them on him.

[Mogote]

A good sense of balance, in my opinion, is one where something SEEMS overpowered but really is not. 

 

This.

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

My best mechs are about 1.3 k/d which is why I kind chuckle at all the people talking about 2k plus mmr, I just don't understand.  When I first learned of mmr I read an article that said like the top 2% were 2k mmr  and posts all over this forum talking about 2.2 to 2.4 mmr.

 

 

Blackbird, dude... I was just wandering through 65535 players' MMR and minutes-played. 

 

There is VERY little correlation to time played and MMR, you cannot really explain MMR with time played. 

 

The forums are a disproportionate sample - very highly skewed to players who think they might be good enough to be recognized on the forums.

 

The mean MMR - even amongst players with 30,000 minutes (500 hours gameplay) - is 1581, and is 1478 for all players over all time.  This is what I mean by little correlation - 100 points average increase as you cut about 60,000 records (down to about 5380) out of that 65535 players.  There are some smurfs, yes, and some people who are good at the game immediately upon playing it.

 

The VAST majority of Hawken pilots will never see 2000 MMR.  I think it's a lot less than 2% historically - about 0.1-0.2% (an order of magnitude smaller).

 

Dunno if that helps any, except to say, you should play with higher-level players in the Unofficial Hawken teamspeak and let those there work with you.

 

Hawken's all about doing the little things, and not relying on the really big amazing things to carry you through.  When the little things are second-nature, more of the big things work, and your MMR climbs.  I think watching what better players do eventually soaks in... don't pick servers with average MMR lower than yours.

HTH.

[thirtysix]

Did it ever occur to you high level players that most of the crap your talking about just isn't achievable by lower level players?

[CrimsonKaim]

You have to play with a variety of mechs and choose a mech according to the situation.

And this is another point that is broken. 'Cause 6 snipers on bazaar gg

[Panzermanathod]

The Assault and the Incin are easily op atm in high-tier play.

 

Which sounds like you saying "If you are really good with those mechs they are OP". Instead of someone being skilled with those mechs.

 

Okay, I'm not high tier, and never saw high tier Assault/Incin play. But I don't know how much of what you said can be attributed to thinking it's OP and now much is the guy being really good. Mind explaining a bit more?

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

Did it ever occur to you high level players that most of the crap your talking about just isn't achievable by lower level players?

 

 

Yes.

[Superkamikazee]

Blackbird, dude... I was just wandering through 65535 players' MMR and minutes-played. 

 

There is VERY little correlation to time played and MMR, you cannot really explain MMR with time played. 

 

The forums are a disproportionate sample - very highly skewed to players who think they might be good enough to be recognized on the forums.

 

The mean MMR - even amongst players with 30,000 minutes (500 hours gameplay) - is 1581, and is 1478 for all players over all time.  This is what I mean by little correlation - 100 points average increase as you cut about 60,000 records (down to about 5380) out of that 65535 players.  There are some smurfs, yes, and some people who are good at the game immediately upon playing it.

 

The VAST majority of Hawken pilots will never see 2000 MMR.  I think it's a lot less than 2% historically - about 0.1-0.2% (an order of magnitude smaller).

 

Dunno if that helps any, except to say, you should play with higher-level players in the Unofficial Hawken teamspeak and let those there work with you.

 

Hawken's all about doing the little things, and not relying on the really big amazing things to carry you through.  When the little things are second-nature, more of the big things work, and your MMR climbs.  I think watching what better players do eventually soaks in... don't pick servers with average MMR lower than yours.

HTH.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Hawkens meta decisions should never revolve around high tier players. They are invaluable for balance input, but it makes no sense to design a game around what 0.2% of the player population "feels" thegame should play like. At times it seems like some of Hawkens meta decisions catered to, or tried to appeal more to, higher tiered gameplay which could be another reason why player retention, and overall population numbers, have been meh at best. 

 

There should be priority to ensure the game is enjoyable to the largest number of players possible, which according to your data overwhelmingly suggests the mid tiered'ish player. Wish there was a way to get some feedback from that large percentage of Hawken players on what they like / dislike about the game. 

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

I'm at work. Let me reply later tonight but there ARE methods

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Hawkens meta decisions should never revolve around high tier players. They are invaluable for balance input, but it makes no sense to design a game around what 0.2% of the player population "feels" thegame should play like. At times it seems like some of Hawkens meta decisions catered to, or tried to appeal more to, higher tiered gameplay which could be another reason why player retention, and overall population numbers, have been meh at best. 

 

The 0.2% 'gets' what the gameplay is when you do it right, 99.8% of the time.  The 99.8% get it right only a part of the time - and they only get part of 'it' right.  This essentially says they're not really qualified for an outright frank opinion.

 

Instead, 'it' can be gathered from performance data - the law of large numbers etc.  It's faster and usually about as accurate to get it from the 0.2%.

 

There should be priority to ensure the game is enjoyable to the largest number of players possible, which according to your data overwhelmingly suggests the mid tiered'ish player. Wish there was a way to get some feedback from that large percentage of Hawken players on what they like / dislike about the game.

 

There is a way.  We (editorial we, not me literally) can try things in the game, and see how popular they are by use.  We can also determine if changes we try make it harder for new players to break out of the 1400-1600 range.  

 

We  can also put surveys in the game, at the 10 hour and 100 hour marks.

[Superkamikazee]

The 0.2% 'gets' what the gameplay is when you do it right, 99.8% of the time.  The 99.8% get it right only a part of the time - and they only get part of 'it' right.  This essentially says they're not really qualified for an outright frank opinion.
 
Instead, 'it' can be gathered from performance data - the law of large numbers etc.  It's faster and usually about as accurate to get it from the 0.2%.

What's right and what's not right? Are you really suggesting high mmr player opinion on meta design is always correct because they play well, and excel within a game? That's a pretty egregious conclusion. 
 
Getting it right means they're good at the game, that's it. They excel within the games set parameters, limitations, meta, etc. Being good at a game, doesn't necessarily mean you're good at designing a game. Have to balance things out, there needs to be a depth to the game for the skilled players, but there also needs to be accessibility for new or less skilled players. Everyone needs to be able to have fun, not just the .02%. 
 

There is a way.  We (editorial we, not me literally) can try things in the game, and see how popular they are by use.  We can also determine if changes we try make it harder for new players to break out of the 1400-1600 range.  
 
We  can also put surveys in the game, at the 10 hour and 100 hour marks.

Been there, done that, population decimated multiple times. The new devs need to determine what worked, what didn't, come up with what they feel is the "right" direction, and stick with it. We've seen what sweeping changes can do to the games population. Let's never do that again.

 

Your statistics already suggest players are struggling to break out of the 1400-1600 MMR range, so idk what you're getting at. 

[thirtysix]

Ya gotta go where the money is... I like Hawken. What I don't like is when high level players manage to get into mid and low level matches and decimate the enemy single handedly. Perhaps there could/should be a fourth division of skill level added. What are the mmr cutoff points anyway?? Add one more...

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

I didn't suggest sweeping changes, Kami.

 

I think you're missing my point - the methods of small tweak and observe results are slow.  Asking the forum participants is faster.

 

We know our MMR is skewed.  We're not making it easier for us to rule noobs or to hold our own (or else we should be transparent about why we're asking for a change).  We're looking at what makes the gameplay better when anyone learns how to use a mechanic right, and not make the game itself hold people back (beyond a high skill cap, meaning, in dumb/unintentional ways that break the experience.  Like... oh... walls that hold you, say.)

 

A survey in game to determine experience or what the paying freight wants is another datapoint.  And, I think it is inexpensive research, but that's up to Josh and crew to validate, I'm only suggesting.

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

Ya gotta go where the money is... I like Hawken. What I don't like is when high level players manage to get into mid and low level matches and decimate the enemy single handedly. Perhaps there could/should be a fourth division of skill level added. What are the mmr cutoff points anyway?? Add one more...

 

�250/star away, but it's unclear if there's some other modifier (e.g. k/d). 

 

I think this is a bit of a problem for a 2200 MMR player as a 2400+ player *or a server full) can knock him back HARD in a single match.  I think a 2200 player can hit 1700-1900 players kind of hard, but not as much as the former example.   This is actually what I'm looking at the data for, this and the effect of a smurf.  I don't have all the data I need, so I may not be able to give an answer soon.

[M4st0d0n]

Before steam MMR was less spread. Top was 2400ish. I hitted 2100 MMR while leveling pure support tech. 0.6 K/D. After that I took a shower and decided to stop caring about broken stats.

 

I cringe when I see vets proposing 20% armor buff, removing the matchmaker or a G2assault with dual SMC...

[JeffMagnum]

What's right and what's not right? Are you really suggesting high mmr player opinion on meta design is always correct because they play well, and excel within a game? That's a pretty egregious conclusion. 
 
Getting it right means they're good at the game, that's it. They excel within the games set parameters, limitations, meta, etc. Being good at a game, doesn't necessarily mean you're good at designing a game. Have to balance things out, there needs to be a depth to the game for the skilled players, but there also needs to be accessibility for new or less skilled players. Everyone needs to be able to have fun, not just the .02%. 
 

Been there, done that, population decimated multiple times. The new devs need to determine what worked, what didn't, come up with what they feel is the "right" direction, and stick with it. We've seen what sweeping changes can do to the games population. Let's never do that again.

 

Your statistics already suggest players are struggling to break out of the 1400-1600 MMR range, so idk what you're getting at. 

 

You'd have a point if high-MMR players got where they are solely based on technical ability, but that's not how it works. Sure, that factors heavily into it, but they also understand virtually every aspect of the meta and can accurately predict how changes will affect it before they're made. Do you actually think someone who can play almost all of the mechs with different loadouts at a 2500+ level is equally qualified in their opinions on balance as someone who still struggles with Assault against random ~1400 pubs? 

 

We've heard the concerns new players have hundreds of times already, and they most definitely factor into discussions about the state of the game. We don't think high-level play exists in a vacuum, and we know things that work there might break the game at other levels. It's widely acknowledged that Hellfires are virtually useless past mid-high play, but hardly anyone wants to give them a straight buff to make them competitive with other secondaries in large part due to the issues it'd cause for everyone else.

 

No one at the far end of the MMR scale is trying to make it easier to stomp new players, and in reality, a lot of the changes we want would actually make it harder for us to do that. Removing artificial barriers like level restrictions for AC or reducing the grind doesn't benefit us whatsoever, because we're already all at 30 with more HC than we can possibly spend. How do you interpret this as us wanting to have fun at the expense of low-MMR players? Can you even give some examples of changes we've proposed that would let us do that?

[CrimsonKaim]

To this "0.2%" meta high tier player stuff:

Would you employ one qualified doctor to treat someone or rather a whole bunch of McDonalds employed?

[BaronSaturday]

SC II is balanced based solely on what happens in Tournaments. It was noted that Zerg players best way to deal with Tarran bio was banelings. They wanted to keep the baneling play strong against Terran bio but add more options. So they buffed zerg air so as to give more options. They also buffed Terran Siege tanks. They added damage to spider mines but nerfed it's range. It was a trade. Same thing happens in every competitive game. Things are balanced at the top end. The top end is going to be able to exploit the mechanics in such a way that is measurable because they can do it all the time with great success. What needs to be figured out is how they go about balancing those things. Never nerf anything unless there is no other option.

Edited by SaturdayGhede, 16 April 2015 - 09:50 PM.

[Panzermanathod]

To this "0.2%" meta high tier player stuff:

Would you employ one qualified doctor to treat someone or rather a whole bunch of McDonalds employed?

 

Doesn't fit in this instance. You're comparing people of varying skill levels to 2 totally different occupations.

 

And, really, top tier players do have weight to their opinions. But they should *not* be the sole ones dictating what changes and what stays the same.

 

Never mind that what they what might not be what the vast majority of players want, there is also an image issue. We have a forum here. Where many users discuss stuff. People can have ideas and opinions and wait your opinion doesn't matter because your MMR isn't over 2000 so you should shut up and let daddy do the talking. If you're suggesting that the low/mid tier guys are wholly unable to give constructive criticism then why even have a forum?

[BaronSaturday]

Doesn't fit in this instance. You're comparing people of varying skill levels to 2 totally different occupations.

And, really, top tier players do have weight to their opinions. But they should *not* be the sole ones dictating what changes and what stays the same.

Never mind that what they what might not be what the vast majority of players want, there is also an image issue. We have a forum here. Where many users discuss stuff. People can have ideas and opinions and wait your opinion doesn't matter because your MMR isn't over 2000 so you should shut up and let daddy do the talking. If you're suggesting that the low/mid tier guys are wholly unable to give constructive criticism then why even have a forum?

No tier of players should dictate anything. However, they should state that there's a problem if they see one. Give detailed information. The devs should pull players into test servers to tes changes.

[RedVan]

 If you're suggesting that the low/mid tier guys are wholly unable to give constructive criticism then why even have a forum?

 

Why have a forum?  For the pros to do the talkin!

 

But srsly, it's ok for everyone to give opinions, criticism, etc.... but lets be honest, would you rather have a game balanced by people that know how to play it?  Or people that don't?  Balance would be whack if by the latter.

 

The best thing to take from the input of lower skilled players is how to make the game more accessible so they can become better.  I mean, that is the overall goal right?  For players to improve?

Edited by RedVan, 17 April 2015 - 01:34 AM.

[Grizzled]

This thread has several issues.

 

1. who gets a say in any changes and how much weight that say gets.

2. what seems to be "OP" at different skill levels of play

3. what kind of data or observation is admissible as evidence of an imbalance.

 

I thought about these as this thread developed. I think anyone with a valid, fact based argument should be able to have a say in balance. 

 

What is "OP" is incredibly hard to measure, the better a player gets, the more he can push an advantage of a mech. The situation (terrain or lack thereof, distance, awareness of each player) dictate style as much as the mech itself. Removing or normalizing variables should be one of the first orders of business when comparing effectiveness. 

 

One of the ways that we could look at the data (help me out here guys) would be to look at not just DPS but DPM (damage per minute) or perhaps damage before overheat. Look at not just rate of movement per second but total movement possible (including dodge rush) over a minutes time. With a larger scale, granular data starts to show differences that are not available as a snapshot. 

 

This method does favor sustain weapons. I think, hmmmm. There just has to be a way to evaluate the metrics and data available, grade it (on a curve where necessary) and determine where SMALL changes, tested and confirmed with actual game-play could benefit the game. 

 

Oh and as a parting shot to the SMURFS, if you are just destroying the newbs without giving them tips and teaching them technique, you are one of the problems with balance. 

[Ninja_Goat]

Teamwork is OP   ,     if teamwork is equal then.....

individual skill is OP  ,  if individual skill is equal then.....

Mech choice becomes key.

 

Like most class based games, each mech has a role,  Tech + Incin combo,  pick infiltrator and 1 shot alpha strike the tech.  Pesky little scout that u cant hit, pick a helfire mech and lock onto its ass.

 

Some mechs are stronger against others, but its Teamwork and individual skill that causes the problems, exasperated by the low player base that regularly creates a server with an MMR range of 1600 - 2200 or worse.

 

Re-loaded needs to work on attracting new players and retaining them. More even servers create more even games.  If a few mechs are a bit overpowered or underpowered in High Tier games who cares (just agree to ban them)

 

Mechs need to be balanced for the masses, as it is they that have the coin to keep the game financially viable.  

 

Some mechs need to be easier to play with, average and below average players need to be able to get good with a few mechs or they ain't going to keep playing.

Technician, Rocketeer, Scout, Assault + CRT are all relatively easy to become ok with, but all can still be devastating in a high skilled players hands. 

[Superkamikazee]

You'd have a point if high-MMR players got where they are solely based on technical ability, but that's not how it works. Sure, that factors heavily into it, but they also understand virtually every aspect of the meta and can accurately predict how changes will affect it before they're made. Do you actually think someone who can play almost all of the mechs with different loadouts at a 2500+ level is equally qualified in their opinions on balance as someone who still struggles with Assault against random ~1400 pubs? 
 
We've heard the concerns new players have hundreds of times already, and they most definitely factor into discussions about the state of the game. We don't think high-level play exists in a vacuum, and we know things that work there might break the game at other levels. It's widely acknowledged that Hellfires are virtually useless past mid-high play, but hardly anyone wants to give them a straight buff to make them competitive with other secondaries in large part due to the issues it'd cause for everyone else.
 
No one at the far end of the MMR scale is trying to make it easier to stomp new players, and in reality, a lot of the changes we want would actually make it harder for us to do that. Removing artificial barriers like level restrictions for AC or reducing the grind doesn't benefit us whatsoever, because we're already all at 30 with more HC than we can possibly spend. How do you interpret this as us wanting to have fun at the expense of low-MMR players? Can you even give some examples of changes we've proposed that would let us do that?

 
Before you get ahead of yourself, read.  https://community.pl...hs-are/?p=18841
 
 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Hawkens meta decisions should never revolve around high tier players. They are invaluable for balance input, but it makes no sense to design a game around what 0.2% of the player population "feels" thegame should play like. At times it seems like some of Hawkens meta decisions catered to, or tried to appeal more to, higher tiered gameplay which could be another reason why player retention, and overall population numbers, have been meh at best. 
 
There should be priority to ensure the game is enjoyable to the largest number of players possible, which according to your data overwhelmingly suggests the mid tiered'ish player. Wish there was a way to get some feedback from that large percentage of Hawken players on what they like / dislike about the game.

[Panzermanathod]

 

But srsly, it's ok for everyone to give opinions, criticism, etc.... but lets be honest, would you rather have a game balanced by people that know how to play it?  Or people that don't?  Balance would be whack if by the latter.

 

I'm saying that there should be feedback from more than just the best players. Yes, it would be best to get balance stuff from people who know how to play the game. But more than top tier players play this and there are balance issues with different tiers. A good median should be reached. If this balance change effects a sizable portion of the playerbase, sure, but in a game where mechs have various uses, having one that's OP or UP only in specific spots in high tier games needs discussion from more than just the top tiers.

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

Pman,

I don't know that this has really come across: if you're posting on this forum to offer your opinion, the stats say youre better Skilled than 95% of the population.

Should we disallow your opinion alongside the others here?

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

Hate posting from a phone... My point is that to the general population your opinion is just as elite as mine...

[M4st0d0n]

Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone got one. Hawken has an history of prioritizing feedback from certain people. HAB was more of a free QA testing thing, but still. At that time I remember prominent members of the EU community getting utterly discouraged by the spliting this thing induced in the community. And the apparent total disregard of Adhesive to vets that were deeply involved but discarded for purely logistical reasons.

 

Just be extremely careful what you ask for. Even something as benine as a test server for the vets. If it's EU based will you be playing with 200 ping to give feedback? I dont think so. So please, just keep sending the same pseudo-elite broken MMR-based message to the newbs trying to find answers on this forum. And dont even learn.